furever_pit wrote:And if I have dogs who are strong enough that a correction is done and over with and no one has hurt feelings then why not use corrections?

I would still like an honest answer to this question.

I guess different mindsets. For me, I take pride in knowing that I'm training Inara without corrections and that I have people stopping me out in public to tell me how beautifully behaved she is. People in my dog classes (most with goldens and labs and other normally "perfect" dogs) can't stop raving about how smart and focused and eager to work and obedient she is. She can handle a correction, but if she doesn't need one, I'm not going to give her one just because she won't hold a grudge about it.

But again, I'm not choosing to do a sport where corrections are almost mandatory. If I was interested in a sport but couldn't get any further without corrections or doing something like forced retrieves, then I'd stop. Inara could handle it, but I wouldn't want her to. It's not a life or death situation, so I'm not going to cause her pain or discomfort for a game, which is essentially what all sports are.

Not meaning any disrespect, again, just different mindsets.

"Remember - every time your dog gets somewhere on a tight leash *a fairy dies and it's all your fault.* Think of the fairies." http://www.positivepetzine.com"

And if I have dogs who are strong enough that a correction is done and over with and no one has hurt feelings then why not use corrections?

There are a handful of reasons that I don't use corrections, some of which Liz spelled out in the above post. But to add a few more of my own...

1. Sawyer is an Service Dog, and John can't handle physical corrections anymore. So even if I *wanted* to use corrections in his training...John couldn't use the same level of corrections to proof Sawyer in the every day world. I used to train Assistance Dogs...and I always thought the use of corrections was stupid honestly, when you were talking about dogs that were going to have to work for someone with a disability...that may or may not be able to handle the physical corrections that the strong trainers were using. I also let other people handle my dogs quite a bit...Score's main handler is a 9 year old boy...who is small physically, and again, could NOT give the same level of physical correction that I can give. I have to think of the others in my life, not just me and the dogs.

2. I compete in sports that corrections are not allowed, nor really useful. I used to compete in agility...I used to dabble in competition disc dog sports (frisbee)...and I now compete heavily in flyball. They all have to be off leash, and I know that flyball and agility forbid the use of choke and prong collars (never looked at the rules for disc...). So I can't use a correction collar in my sports of choice...and the dogs have to be reliable off-leash at quite a distance from me. In my sports, it doesn't make sense to use correction-based methods.

Could my dogs handle a correction? I'm sure they could on varying levels...but I've not needed one for years. I am a cross-over trainer, if you didn't know that. I started doing obedience in high school, while in 4-H...I used to slap a choke chain on my basset hound and jerk and pop her around the ring. Then I found agility, and found how to get her cooperation instead of forcing her...and I never looked back. Could she handle the correction...sure she took a lot of hard corrections (try keeping a basset's nose off of the floor of the 4-H sheep building where you train...), but never really worked well. Once we were off-leash with treats...I couldn't peel her away from me. Sold!

So yeah, I do know how to give a correction...just look back at Michelle's post. I give physical corrections to dogs that *know* what they're all about...and if I absolutely had to, I could give one to my dogs...but I just haven't seen any reason to use one.

"I don't have any idea if my dogs respect me or not, but they're greedy and I have their stuff." -- Patty Ruzzo

"Dogs don't want to control people. They want to control their own lives." --John Bradshaw

I compete in sports that corrections are not allowed, nor really useful. I used to compete in agility...I used to dabble in competition disc dog sports (frisbee)...and I now compete heavily in flyball. They all have to be off leash, and I know that flyball and agility forbid the use of choke and prong collars (never looked at the rules for disc...). So I can't use a correction collar in my sports of choice...and the dogs have to be reliable off-leash at quite a distance from me. In my sports, it doesn't make sense to use correction-based methods

I don't think there is a dog sport out there that allows a handler to to walk out with a prong collar on and correct a dog while COMPETING. The only time I have ever heard of this being allowed is in the case of (Obedience) CORRECTION Matches which are designed to proof your dog and get them ready for the real thing..The AKC and UKC offer these sorts of matches..

I have to agree with some of the other posts here..without using corrections during TRAINING, it is going to be next to impossible to compete at the high levels of a lot of these sports...correcting a dog when it decides to blow off their handler is how you get them to think twice about doing that same thing come trial time...my question to those who never use corrections is this...

Without corrections, how do you drive the point home to your dog that they must follow commands no matter what is going on around them? Or do you all own dogs that never once disobeyed you during training, even when a reward wasn't present?

LisaM wrote:Without corrections, how do you drive the point home to your dog that they must follow commands no matter what is going on around them? Or do you all own dogs that never once disobeyed you during training, even when a reward wasn't present?

Personally, I understand that Inara isn't a robot. I don't always do exactly what I'm told immediately when I'm told to do it, so why would I expect my dog, who functions at the level of a baby/toddler, to be perfect? I'm not saying I'm thrilled if she blows me off, but generally if she does it's because I moved too fast and she went over threshold. It was my fault for not doing enough reps and training it well enough.

"Remember - every time your dog gets somewhere on a tight leash *a fairy dies and it's all your fault.* Think of the fairies." http://www.positivepetzine.com"

pitbullmamaliz wrote:But again, I'm not choosing to do a sport where corrections are almost mandatory. If I was interested in a sport but couldn't get any further without corrections or doing something like forced retrieves, then I'd stop. Inara could handle it, but I wouldn't want her to. It's not a life or death situation, so I'm not going to cause her pain or discomfort for a game, which is essentially what all sports are.

And in this statement, you have said something that I have heard many time from people who choose to train without using physical corrections... and it the reason that I think that all of the people who champion the methods don't truly believe that they are as reliable as they think... because if they were, then there wouldn't be any training that couldn't be accomplished.

Someone in the dog training club I am in said something very similar to this during a rather "heated" discussion: she would never move on to the advanced levels of obedience because at those levels compulsion is necessary for the training and she would never use compulsion so she'll never earn those titles. Uh... if your training methods are "superior" (her words) then why can't you pass the titles? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me.

Corrections are not manditory... with some dogs. However, I believe, that with some dogs they are. Just like I believe that with some kids they are. I can count on one hand the number of times that I was physically corrected as a kid, and every time I deserved it, and it made quite the impression (literally and physically... ) Some dogs, if you ignore the bad and reward the good, they will just keep on keeping on, because their "bad" is self rewarding enough that you can't over-ride it.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

pitbullmamaliz wrote:But again, I'm not choosing to do a sport where corrections are almost mandatory. If I was interested in a sport but couldn't get any further without corrections or doing something like forced retrieves, then I'd stop. Inara could handle it, but I wouldn't want her to. It's not a life or death situation, so I'm not going to cause her pain or discomfort for a game, which is essentially what all sports are.

And in this statement, you have said something that I have heard many time from people who choose to train without using physical corrections... and it the reason that I think that all of the people who champion the methods don't truly believe that they are as reliable as they think... because if they were, then there wouldn't be any training that couldn't be accomplished.

Someone in the dog training club I am in said something very similar to this during a rather "heated" discussion: she would never move on to the advanced levels of obedience because at those levels compulsion is necessary for the training and she would never use compulsion so she'll never earn those titles. Uh... if your training methods are "superior" (her words) then why can't you pass the titles? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me.

Corrections are not manditory... with some dogs. However, I believe, that with some dogs they are. Just like I believe that with some kids they are. I can count on one hand the number of times that I was physically corrected as a kid, and every time I deserved it, and it made quite the impression (literally and physically... ) Some dogs, if you ignore the bad and reward the good, they will just keep on keeping on, because their "bad" is self rewarding enough that you can't over-ride it.

furever_pit wrote:I'm really really not trying to be critical. I just like talking about this stuff. Dylan's safe spot is his attention heel. I blame it on spending way too much time teaching it and using too much food to do it.

Actually, that generally comes from a dog learning that the only "safe" place to be is in the heel position. They don't get "in trouble" if they are at your side and looking at you, so when under stress - whether it be from the pressure of a decoy on the field or from something else - they know that if the are next to you they can be there. That creates some real trouble at higher levels of different sports when you need your dog to work under pressure at a distance, because the dog has never learned to deal with pressure away from you. The automatic, default behavior is next to you, looking at you. And it's not from too many treats, it's from too many corrections to keep him there. A lot of sport dogs have problems with breaking when they see decoys and have gotten in a lot of trouble for it, so they have been conditioned not to think - just to stick next to their handlers like glue, no thinking required.

When we were training with a Schutzhund club for a while, they were floored when Demo was working Connor doing recalls over and around sleeves, jackets and decoys. One owner/handler of a Sch III dog said "my dog would never" do that. I'm not saying that Connor doesn't have his issues but with consistent work, getting dogs to think on their own away from the handler is absolutely possible, but it takes a lot of trust from both parties.

We trained with someone years ago who taught their dog to heel using R-. Not how I would teach a dog something (especially a puppy) but that's not the point here. After a few weeks, she had a beautiful attention heel. She didn't budge from his left side, but at a certain point, it was time to teach stay. Then what? She had only learned that the place where corrections didn't happen was next to him on his left side, so when he said "place" and stepped away, she of course followed and got a correction for that. That was one confused little dog.

She hadn't been taught to think, only taught that corrections don't come if you're next to dad's left leg, but now you have to stay over there. Talk about STRESS. And no, I don't think that puppy had a clue what "heel" meant as a concept, just that that "area" meant that corrections stopped. When they concept the command, they know the command; and in my opinion once they concept that's when corrections come in. I've brought them in too soon because I screwed up, but that's my mistake.

There are also exceptions, because I think there is also a time and place for self-corrections.

Nothing is absolute.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

I'm pretty confident that very few people will get to the higher obedience levels without using compulsion in one form or another... I think in most dog sports you can get away with using minimal to no compulsion since many sports allow handlers to provide reinforcement during the sport (flyball, disc, dock diving, agility, tracking, etc...). I do think there are people with dogs out there that could compete in the higher levels of obedience but many are not interested in spending their hours working in formal obedience and thus choose to compete in activities that they enjoy more

We all know that R+, R-, P+, P-, extinction, etc.... work. I think that people that are preaching that R+ is superior probably feel that way based on their own ethics rather than a profound belief that one actually works better in all situations versus the other.

Without corrections, how do you drive the point home to your dog that they must follow commands no matter what is going on around them? Or do you all own dogs that never once disobeyed you during training, even when a reward wasn't present?

I think this question depends on the activity we are talking about and the dogs motivation for what they are doing. In most sports where you are able to provide reinforcement during training and competition, you can very easily drive home the point that they have disobeyed.

Some dogs, if you ignore the bad and reward the good, they will just keep on keeping on, because their "bad" is self rewarding enough that you can't over-ride it.

True but there are very few self rewarding behaviors that cannot be controlled via the environment which would allow the handler to address those issues. I would also argue that rewarding the good and ignoring the bad is highly oversimplifying the training methods of people who choose not to use compulsion (I realize you know that but was making the point for others reading this post).

LisaM wrote:Good topic! I have noticed that the importance of positive reinforcement is brought up frequently on this board but I rarely, if ever, see anyone refer to the value of correction. It's usually referred to as "compulsion" like it's some evil thing...

You haven't really read a whole lot of threads then. I know you're new to the board, so I won't get all over you for it though. The majority of owners here actually use corrections, though a lot of people are moving towards motivational training recently. Compulsion isn't evil, and I don't let people act like it is, considering I use it and I own the place (quite literally) it will never be referred to as such.

IMO the best trainers use a balanced approach, utilizing both ends of the spectrum...using food or toy to shape behaviors is no doubt the best way to approach a puppy or green dog...stress free and fun, just the way LEARNING should be . However, I think there comes a time where we need to show the dog that there is a price to pay for non compliance. Without that hanging over their heads, what's stopping them from ignoring their handler in favor of something else? Some dogs want to please more than others, and some are just downright afraid to leave their owners side so therefore a physical correction is rarely if ever needed, even in times of distraction.

"hanging over their heads" and "afraid to leave their owners sides" and "price to pay" hmmm...

Well, I'm not seeing those phrases as ways to convince people that using corrections as part of balanced training is a good thing. Semantics perhaps, but pay attention to your audience here.

I have a great dog that has a nasty streak to him. He's very dominant, and I've used corrections with him and I've used clickers with him. He responds quite well to both. Thing is, I could hand him his ass if I wanted to, the strongest correction that I could give him still couldn't really "hurt" him and if I give him an unfair correction, he could seriously hurt me if he ever chose to (like most dogs). He does as he's told because he wants to, not because he's worried about what correction might come if he doesn't. And when he doesn't want to, he doesn't... because he doesn't give a crap about the consequences. It makes training rather challenging.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

Some dogs, if you ignore the bad and reward the good, they will just keep on keeping on, because their "bad" is self rewarding enough that you can't over-ride it.

True but there are very few self rewarding behaviors that cannot be controlled via the environment which would allow the handler to address those issues. I would also argue that rewarding the good and ignoring the bad is highly oversimplifying the training methods of people who choose not to use compulsion (I realize you know that but was making the point for others reading this post).

Actually, there are a lot of behaviors that can be considered self-rewarding that could be hard to fix without a correction, but also hard to find a reward that outweighs the self-reward.

Nusance barking is one example, finding a reward that outweighs the joy that some dogs seem to find in barking their heads off can be rather challenging.

Counter surfing is another example. Keeping the counters clear does not stop the problem, because the dog will still look for things. So if the dog looks and finds nothing, the dog is still counter surfing, but the day you forget and there is something there, the self-reward has happened, and the problem is back full force.

A dog that eats shoes has not stopped eating shoes because you have learned put them away. You have just removed the problem.

On another forum I was on a while ago, someone posted that their dog kept trying to kill their ducks. I suggested a back tie and allowing the dog to self correct a few times. Oh my, you would have thought I told her to beat the dog senseless. I bet the ducks wouldn't have minded the dog getting a correction or two... well that or a dead duck or two.

And, no, I actually wasn't oversimplifying. All of the foundation work in my classes is R+, and we do exactly that: ignore the barking and carrying on, and reward the focus / attention. The only reward the dogs get in class is for eye contact and sitting calmly.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

mnp13 wrote:Actually, there are a lot of behaviors that can be considered self-rewarding that could be hard to fix without a correction, but also hard to find a reward that outweighs the self-reward.

Well there must be a lot of witch doctors posing as trainers out there because these are all very common behaviors that are being addressed without the use of compulsion

Nuisance barking is one example, finding a reward that outweighs the joy that some dogs seem to find in barking their heads off can be rather challenging.

Barking is certainly self rewarding but there is usually a trigger or reason for the barking. Once that is identified, you don't need to correct a dog to fix the behavior

Counter surfing is another example. Keeping the counters clear does not stop the problem, because the dog will still look for things. So if the dog looks and finds nothing, the dog is still counter surfing, but the day you forget and there is something there, the self-reward has happened, and the problem is back full force.

Again, controlling the environment in this situation is rather simple. Providing an alternative behavior that is far more reinforcing when the dog reaches the floor near the counter can outweigh a self reinforcement of jumping up on the counter

A dog that eats shoes has not stopped eating shoes because you have learned put them away. You have just removed the problem.

Chewing is a rather normal behavior for a dog. Mind you we don't want dogs to ruin things around the house, so putting shoes in a closet definitely isn't teaching a dog not to chew but I would prefer controlling the environment, giving them a chew toy and having a clean house versus correcting my dog

And, no, I actually wasn't oversimplifying. All of the foundation work in my classes is R+, and we do exactly that: ignore the barking and carrying on, and reward the focus / attention. The only reward the dogs get in class is for eye contact and sitting calmly.

Ok. Most of the trainers I've worked with use R+, P-, extinction and even R-

Many of the situations above can be addressed in a variety of ways. Some will obviously take longer than others depending on the method you use. I'm not sure if I would say those behaviors are hard to fix, but they certainly could require more time and effort than fixing other problems. I take things very slow with my dogs and have had good results with this, so this isn't something that bothers me.

Kayden has a bad habit of rushing into a dog to great them. It's not something I've spent a lot of time to work on because I don't really give him the opportunity to "visit" with dogs he doesn't know. After taking him on a walk with our foster the other day I wanted him to have the chance to great her. I spent about 15 minutes walking him towards her. She was probably only about 20 feet from me with Heidi but Kayden insisted on trying to charge forth to meet her. Every time he hit the end of the leash we would take two steps back. He would put himself back into heel, walk a few feet with me and again, we would back up. This took me 15 minutes but by the end he was in perfect heel the whole way.

I would bet the farm you would not have addressed that issue the same way. My guess is that Kayden would have gotten a couple of really nice corrections.

Is my way of doing something any better than yours on a practical level? Definitely not if we are concerned about the time of training the behavior. Is Kayden going to retain that behavior any better with your method versus mine? Hard to say... In this case I controlled his resource so not allowing him that resource is a huge advantage.

maberi wrote:Kayden has a bad habit of rushing into a dog to great them. It's not something I've spent a lot of time to work on because I don't really give him the opportunity to "visit" with dogs he doesn't know. After taking him on a walk with our foster the other day I wanted him to have the chance to great her. I spent about 15 minutes walking him towards her. She was probably only about 20 feet from me with Heidi but Kayden insisted on trying to charge forth to meet her. Every time he hit the end of the leash we would take two steps back. He would put himself back into heel, walk a few feet with me and again, we would back up. This took me 15 minutes but by the end he was in perfect heel the whole way.

I would bet the farm you would not have addressed that issue the same way. My guess is that Kayden would have gotten a couple of really nice corrections.

Is my way of doing something any better than yours on a practical level? Definitely not if we are concerned about the time of training the behavior. Is Kayden going to retain that behavior any better with your method versus mine? Hard to say... In this case I controlled his resource so not allowing him that resource is a huge advantage.

Actually... those are quite nice self corrections. And I use plenty of those... if Kayden was charging to the end of the leash and you were standing still, he was getting a correction. You weren't "jerking" the leash, but the correction was still there. I'm sure that repetition of the lesson will teach him what you want - walking politely will get him where he wants to go. I don't know which lesson would sink in faster, "my way" or "your way" both work, both need consistency, both need follow up. But you and I both know that.

What I use for dogs depends on what the dog and the handler want.

If time is a factor, do I alter methods? Yup. I also tell people who have prong collars on their dogs who don't need them to take them off.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

furever_pit wrote:And if I have dogs who are strong enough that a correction is done and over with and no one has hurt feelings then why not use corrections?

I would still like an honest answer to this question.

An honest answer? I'm not concerned with my dog's feelings. I am concerned with my dog's behavior - as is everyone here.

Both of my dogs are more than capable of handling any physical correction that I can hand out - both mentally and physically. If the correction is for a command that they know and understand, and it is timed correctly then they know what it is for. And yes, I'm quite good with timing. No, I'm not perfect, so sometimes I make mistakes but my dogs have also proven to be quite good at recovering from any errors on my part.

I think the point that Erin, Liz and Matt and a few others have been trying to make is, if you don't "have" to use corrections in training, they why use them?

If the only form of stress you can come up with in your dog's training is a prong collar or e-collar correction, and that is the measure of if the dog is breedable, then there are some serious holes in your training. If your dog falls apart under stress, that's going to show up in far more places than a collar correction, and if it only shows up there then there are other things going on.

I use corrections because I choose to. I am the adult human in this relationship. I make the decisions about what is best for the dog. I love my dogs. I respect my dogs. I want my dog to want to do as it is told. However, I also believe that there is nothing wrong with the dog knowing that they have a choice - they can do as they are told and receive a reward, or they can chose to not do as they are told and receive a punishment. Sometimes I choose to make that punishment physical, sometimes it is not.

If I was concerned with their "feelings" then I would never punish my dogs. Because it always "hurts their feelings" when they can't do what they want. Obviously, no one really means that. As Erin told us, "Positive does not mean permissive."

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

Nuisance barking is one example, finding a reward that outweighs the joy that some dogs seem to find in barking their heads off can be rather challenging.

Barking is certainly self rewarding but there is usually a trigger or reason for the barking. Once that is identified, you don't need to correct a dog to fix the behavior

Counter surfing is another example. Keeping the counters clear does not stop the problem, because the dog will still look for things. So if the dog looks and finds nothing, the dog is still counter surfing, but the day you forget and there is something there, the self-reward has happened, and the problem is back full force.

Again, controlling the environment in this situation is rather simple. Providing an alternative behavior that is far more reinforcing when the dog reaches the floor near the counter can outweigh a self reinforcement of jumping up on the counter

A dog that eats shoes has not stopped eating shoes because you have learned put them away. You have just removed the problem.

Chewing is a rather normal behavior for a dog. Mind you we don't want dogs to ruin things around the house, so putting shoes in a closet definitely isn't teaching a dog not to chew but I would prefer controlling the environment, giving them a chew toy and having a clean house versus correcting my dog

Well, Matt... you have addressed and explained most of what I was trying to say VERY nicely!!!

mnp13 wrote:[Actually, that generally comes from a dog learning that the only "safe" place to be is in the heel position. They don't get "in trouble" if they are at your side and looking at you, so when under stress - whether it be from the pressure of a decoy on the field or from something else - they know that if the are next to you they can be there. That creates some real trouble at higher levels of different sports when you need your dog to work under pressure at a distance, because the dog has never learned to deal with pressure away from you. The automatic, default behavior is next to you, looking at you. And it's not from too many treats, it's from too many corrections to keep him there. A lot of sport dogs have problems with breaking when they see decoys and have gotten in a lot of trouble for it, so they have been conditioned not to think - just to stick next to their handlers like glue, no thinking required.

When we were training with a Schutzhund club for a while, they were floored when Demo was working Connor doing recalls over and around sleeves, jackets and decoys. One owner/handler of a Sch III dog said "my dog would never" do that. I'm not saying that Connor doesn't have his issues but with consistent work, getting dogs to think on their own away from the handler is absolutely possible, but it takes a lot of trust from both parties.

We trained with someone years ago who taught their dog to heel using R-. Not how I would teach a dog something (especially a puppy) but that's not the point here. After a few weeks, she had a beautiful attention heel. She didn't budge from his left side, but at a certain point, it was time to teach stay. Then what? She had only learned that the place where corrections didn't happen was next to him on his left side, so when he said "place" and stepped away, she of course followed and got a correction for that. That was one confused little dog.

She hadn't been taught to think, only taught that corrections don't come if you're next to dad's left leg, but now you have to stay over there. Talk about STRESS. And no, I don't think that puppy had a clue what "heel" meant as a concept, just that that "area" meant that corrections stopped. When they concept the command, they know the command; and in my opinion once they concept that's when corrections come in. I've brought them in too soon because I screwed up, but that's my mistake.

There are also exceptions, because I think there is also a time and place for self-corrections.

Nothing is absolute.

In most circumstances I would agree with you. I know that many "safe spot" type behaviors can come from too much compulsion or escape training. However, I do not believe that is the case with Dylan. Primarily because the attention heel was taught with +R. Dylan still believes that hot dogs will rain from my face if he sits next to me and stares at me.

His safe spot behavior started showing up when I put Dylan through the forced retrieve with my old Sch club. The whole thing was poorly executed and I saw what was happening and called the whole thing off. Dylan was never once corrected to put him into the heel position while we were doing this. However, he was corrected to perfect his come to front and hold. That is when he started skipping the front to come directly to heel. That is what I mean by safe spot behavior in his instance. We are now rebuilding the retrieve and are making progress.

Did I inadvertently teach Dylan that he won't receive corrections in the heel position (at least of the same intensity as those he received during the forced retrieve)? Perhaps. But I think the fact that I spent SO much more time on that behavior and used more marking and +R when teaching that behavior just made it more favorable in his head.

mnp13 wrote:I think the point that Erin, Liz and Matt and a few others have been trying to make is, if you don't "have" to use corrections in training, they why use them?

I simply reiterated my question because it had not been answered except with that question as a reply. They are two sides to the same coin, so I only wanted to hear the reasons the choose to only use +R. I'm not arguing that anyone change what they are doing, I was just curious.

mnp13 wrote:If the only form of stress you can come up with in your dog's training is a prong collar or e-collar correction, and that is the measure of if the dog is breedable, then there are some serious holes in your training. If your dog falls apart under stress, that's going to show up in far more places than a collar correction, and if it only shows up there then there are other things going on.

It is certainly not the only form of stress. It is just a different kind. And I don't know anyone who base a breeding off of whether or not or how a dog can take a correction. It is just one piece of a multi-faceted puzzle; just one consideration. A dog with environmental sensitivities is even more of a problem for me than a dog that is sensitive to the handler.

furever_pit wrote:I simply reiterated my question because it had not been answered except with that question as a reply. They are two sides to the same coin, so I only wanted to hear the reasons the choose to only use +R. I'm not arguing that anyone change what they are doing, I was just curious.

I, persoanlly, choose to use mostly +R for my crew now, because - I simply didn't know such a thing exsisted before I joined this board, and my heart dog Mick *paid* for my ignorance, in a way.I had no idea what a clicker was, but I can tell you - when I came here and learned more and more about actual training, it was a huge eye opener for me.You know Micks story, and I'm sure you read about his many, many issues w/people... when I started using a ton of +R (coupled w/LAT games, etc.) I could literally see the changes in him on a daily basis. This was a dog who was so fearful that he would've happily torn your face off if you as much as looked at him from 100 feet away... and all "the corrections" in the world did not only NOT correct the behavior, but made him worse. So, I got tons of good advise here, and started working w/him using +R almost exclusively - and to make a long story short... he was able to go through FIVE months of chemo ((where he could NOT be sedated, for medical reasons), and had he not passed away... he could easily be the poster child for +R training now.

Sepp came to me as a very fearful pup as well... the first time I put a collar and leash on him he was in total hysterics and screamed his head off. Peed out of fear when people approached him, and was extremely "cautious" around strangers.So I decided right then that I would not repeat my mistakes, and we did strictly +R (clicker), played tons of LAT hgames whenever he seemed to get anxious... and I haven't looked back since.I AM a fan of self-corrections when it's called for (Sepp can explain THAT one... ), but I'd really rather not get physical w/my dogs when I try to teach them anything - and I have actually found it to be easier on all of us.We don't compete in anything, so I can't comment on those training methods, but for daily life +R suits us.My dogs are well-adjusted and outgoing, and they don't fear people. For the most part they are well-behaved around strangers that come to the house for one reason or another (a little exhuberant at times when greeting people, is all... )... and I really can't ask for more than that.

And, YES, I do expect obedience when I ask for it... come, sit, down, stay, wait, leave it <------ all taught w/+R - all done happily when I ask for it.Of course we have some issues to work on, but in life, that's how it is. I've learned not to sweat the small stuff so much anymore... for example - if you walk w/me you can't pull me all over the sidewalk. I don't demand an attention heel, but loose leash walking is preferred.Taught Faust in one afternoon, and didn't correct him once.